Are they kidding? Republicans See Lamont and the War as Winners
Everyone seems to have a take on this Joe Lieberman defeat in the Democratic primary in Connecticut that makes pretty good sense. Right, left, or center, you can pretty much make a case for your point of view, regardless of what it is.
With one exception -- the National Republican Party.
There are plenty of good points the Republican Party can make. I am probably not their core demographic, but that doesn't mean that I automatically reject anything they say. There are smart Republicans and they are as likely to come up with a good idea as anyone. But this isn't one of them.
The Lieberman defeat in the primary -- providing full employment for political analysts everywhere.
Apparently, the spin the GOP wants to put on this is that it demonstrates how "weak'' the Democratic Party has become since World World II. Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, is giving a speech today (Wednesday) in Ohio, where he will attempt to paint that picture, trying to make the point to Republicans that this idea is a winner in the upcoming November elections.
Uh, no.
I'm no analyst, and we can debate the motives of the war at some other point, but just objectively, this seems like a poor theory. Not when Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, ran a television commercial morphing Lieberman into Bush. Nor when Lieberman actually had to say during the campaign, "I'm not President Bush.''
Bush is not a popular guy. I understand, he's staying the course and he's convinced he's building freedom and encouraging democracy, but it is not stretching the facts to say that polls show that he is not winning the hearts and minds of the American public. Nor, does it seem, the war in Iraq is a plus.
Yet you have to admire their confidence, because the GOP remains convinced that this is a winner. A memo acquired by the Los Angeles Times says that their polling shows that "foreign threats'' are the top motivator for the "Republican base,'' and that the war "could be the party's biggest advantage in the fight to retain control of Congress in the November elections.''
The war? The biggest advantage? Whoa fellas, you haven't been out quail hunting with the Vice President again have you?
If anything, the Lieberman defeat seemed to show what happens when a political leader is convinced he is right and stubbornly declines to listen to those he is supposed to be representing.
At one time, Lieberman's strength was that he was willing to speak up for what he believed, even if it meant taking an unpopular view, like slamming then-President Clinton for his embarrassing episode with a White House intern.
Lieberman was sure he is right about the war and that's fine. But he began to be seen as lecturing his constituents, who are, after all, mostly Democrats.
When he said, this month, "If we leave (Iraq) tomorrow it'll be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East an for us,'' a lot of his critics thought he was creating a made-to-order sound bite for Republicans. And sure enough, after his defeat in the primary, the GOP trotted it out to show how far out of line the rest of his party is.
We'll see about that.
Lieberman's defeat is for political analysts what a Mel Gibson drunk driving arrest is for entertainment reporters — a gift from the heavens.
As the Democratic primary approached, one reporter literally described a CNN political analyst rubbing her hands in glee. This, she said, is what the political news world lives to cover.
It's true. It can't get much better than this. An upset is always a good news story and if there's a chance of bigger issues — the war, the mood of the country, and what it all means — you've got weeks of navel-gazing analysis ahead.
There's almost no way that this can't be spun in everyone's direction. The bloggers can crow that they're the new political force in America and the MSJ's (main stream journalists) can insist that the blog influence is way over-blown. The pollsters are already out, showing us exactly what they said they would, which is that the American voter is in revolt against the "status quo.'' But main line politicians are quick to tell us that what this really shows is that Lieberman lost touch with his "base'' and that shows that you can never overlook the lessons of traditional politics.
But the real story is what will happen now that Lieberman says he is going to run as an independent. Will he stick to his guns and continue to back an unpopular war, and, by implication, an unpopular president? Isn't that what cost him the primary?
As Lamont said in March about the Connecticut voters, "All they know is, A: I am not Joe. And B: I'm against the war.''
Hey, it worked for him. I find it hard to believe the opposite -- he's the president and we're in favor of the war -- will work for the GOP.
Posted By: C.W. Nevius (Email) | August 09 2006 at 10:24 AM
Listed Under: politics | Comments (1) : Post Comment
sfgate.com |
